Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Gadgetmac]

They dig their own graves

[dickymint]

Gadgetmac said:

They dig their own graves

Your laughing as though you understand what's being discussed

[Gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

Gadgetmac said:

They dig their own graves

Your laughing as though you understand what's being discussed

I suspect I understand at least as much as you do...science not being a strong point for deniers.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

Gadgetmac said:

They dig their own graves

Your laughing as though you understand what's being discussed

I suspect I understand at least as much as you do...science not being a strong point for deniers.

And faith is all that is required for you.

[jshell]

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

CO2 only started shooting up rapidly after the war when temps were flat/cooling. The recent warming - the warming most credited as man-made - began in the seventies.

C'mon KP you know that this is not true - the recent warming credited as mainly man-made is post 1950s or are you saying the IPCC is wrong?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Right so small amounts of stuff in the atmosphere CAN effect the ability of lightwaves to travel through it - weird.

This changes everything.

Light waves? What wavelengths does CO2 reflect?

[budgie smuggler]

jshell said:

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

I linked specific pages which give a very simple, and for the most part plain English explanation of why the points he made were false.

I'm sure you will agree it is pointless talking of research and discussing these points when even the most cursory understanding is lacking.

[kerplunk]

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Right so small amounts of stuff in the atmosphere CAN effect the ability of lightwaves to travel through it - weird.

This changes everything.

Light waves? What wavelengths does CO2 reflect?

Is that a trick question?

[deeen]

kerplunk said:

deeen said:

kerplunk said:

TellYaWhatItIs - I notice in one of your links they say volcanic eruptions cause the earth to cool. How can that be when the amount of stuff ejected into the the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere (smaller even than man's CO2 emissions)??

Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.

Crazy stuff!

Because the clouds of stuff reduce the amount of big ball of fire stuff that reaches Earth?

Right so small amounts of stuff in the atmosphere CAN effect the ability of lightwaves to travel through it - weird.

This changes everything.

Yes, the curtain is an amazing invention! Just a small amount of stuff (by volume) in the room can reduce the lightwaves continuing in to the rest of the room!

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Is that a trick question?

Nope, in reference to aerosols it is fairly important.

[jshell]

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

That picture has being around for about 20 years. Only recently has a dead guy been pinned with saying it's a photoshop, or 'doing a Prince Andrew'...

Show me the original picture that was amended.

[kerplunk]

deeen said:

kerplunk said:

deeen said:

kerplunk said:

TellYaWhatItIs - I notice in one of your links they say volcanic eruptions cause the earth to cool. How can that be when the amount of stuff ejected into the the atmosphere by a volcanic eruption is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere (smaller even than man's CO2 emissions)??

Surely it's that big ball of fire in the sky that's most important.

Crazy stuff!

Because the clouds of stuff reduce the amount of big ball of fire stuff that reaches Earth?

Right so small amounts of stuff in the atmosphere CAN effect the ability of lightwaves to travel through it - weird.

This changes everything.

Yes, the curtain is an amazing invention! Just a small amount of stuff (by volume) in the room can reduce the lightwaves continuing in to the rest of the room!

Yes I've noticed that too. I've heard rumour of various 'gases' that can affect the passage of lightwaves as well.

[kerplunk]

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

That picture has being around for about 20 years. Only recently has a dead guy been pinned with saying it's a photoshop, or 'doing a Prince Andrew'...

Show me the original picture that was amended.

I certainly will not. You're a stain on the thread. Take your drive-by ad homs and motor off (please)

[jshell]

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

That picture has being around for about 20 years. Only recently has a dead guy been pinned with saying it's a photoshop, or 'doing a Prince Andrew'...

Show me the original picture that was amended.

I certainly will not. You're a stain on the thread. Take your drive-by ad homs and motor off (please)

Touched a nerve, or can't you? You made a claim, it's for you to back that up. Perhaps that site is your go-to for information and don't like to see its owner exposed for his nefarious tastes...

[kerplunk]

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

That picture has being around for about 20 years. Only recently has a dead guy been pinned with saying it's a photoshop, or 'doing a Prince Andrew'...

Show me the original picture that was amended.

I certainly will not. You're a stain on the thread. Take your drive-by ad homs and motor off (please)

Touched a nerve, or can't you? You made a claim, it's for you to back that up. Perhaps that site is your go-to for information and don't like to see its owner exposed for his nefarious tastes...

"You made a claim, it's for you to back that up"



What a twisted world you live in.

The photoshopped pic is easily found - if you want it on the thread you can have the honour of posting it.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Yes I've noticed that too. I've heard rumour of various 'gases' that can affect the passage of lightwaves as well.

This should be good....

So excluding Rayleigh scattering, pray tell us of these gases and how they affect the passage of lightwaves?

[jshell]

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

That picture has being around for about 20 years. Only recently has a dead guy been pinned with saying it's a photoshop, or 'doing a Prince Andrew'...

Show me the original picture that was amended.

I certainly will not. You're a stain on the thread. Take your drive-by ad homs and motor off (please)

Touched a nerve, or can't you? You made a claim, it's for you to back that up. Perhaps that site is your go-to for information and don't like to see its owner exposed for his nefarious tastes...

"You made a claim, it's for you to back that up"



What a twisted world you live in.

The photoshopped pic is easily found - if you want it on the thread you can have the honour of posting it.

It's funny that. I've always thought you were a value to the AGW threads and I've seen you take some real 'stick'. You've always responded in measured levels and I've even posted in support of you from time to time. I've never attacked you.

But, I point out a few things that have been known about Cook & his non-sceptical views for many, many years and all of that calmness and humor vapourised.

I wonder what your true interests or links are there...

Of course you'll deflect by calling me a mad Conspiracy Theorist, but that's not accurate.

[Gadgetmac]

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

budgie smuggler said:

Seeing as you're into research, could you please save us all some time and read these before posting again:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspo...
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little...
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-ba...
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-fo...

Skeptical science is anything but sceptical and will publish any level of true belief, no matter how extreme. It's not a good one to use in a similar vein to climate realists using an article from Breitbart or the DM...

The owner of that site is a Nazi-dressing, cartoonist.

Excellent - either you're too stupid to recognise an obvious photoshop or you're a grubby opportunistic liar

That picture has being around for about 20 years. Only recently has a dead guy been pinned with saying it's a photoshop, or 'doing a Prince Andrew'...

Show me the original picture that was amended.

I certainly will not. You're a stain on the thread. Take your drive-by ad homs and motor off (please)

Touched a nerve, or can't you? You made a claim, it's for you to back that up. Perhaps that site is your go-to for information and don't like to see its owner exposed for his nefarious tastes...

"You made a claim, it's for you to back that up"



What a twisted world you live in.

The photoshopped pic is easily found - if you want it on the thread you can have the honour of posting it.

It's funny that. I've always thought you were a value to the AGW threads and I've seen you take some real 'stick'. You've always responded in measured levels and I've even posted in support of you from time to time. I've never attacked you.

But, I point out a few things that have been known about Cook & his non-sceptical views for many, many years and all of that calmness and humor vapourised.

I wonder what your true interests or links are there...

Of course you'll deflect by calling me a mad Conspiracy Theorist, but that's not accurate.

If you've a genuine question have you tried contacting a scientist yourself? They will nearly airways answer you. I have done it and posted up his responses as have others and it's airways turned out that it is to the detriment of the deniers.

Try it yourself. Genuinely suggesting this.